Wednesday, June 20, 2012
|
 |
40th CTP (IRS)
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Islamabad,
Posts: 521
Thanks: 453
Thanked 851 Times in 301 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarwar Khokhar
Another Dummy 'll be replacing the Gillani. Rule of Law has won ? Not Yet.  |
I second you. "Chithi" will never be written by a PPP PM. And practically all powers are vested in the party head.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan02
It would be fun if all PML N, PML Q and MQM united to elect another PM 
As for being a martyr, I find it amazing that going to jail or getting disqualified is a mark on honor in Pakistan. |
This is how the system works in Pakistan. Patronage based politics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alimallah
Well bing a student of law, this decision has really disappointed me. I am not supporting Gilani but, i am against the decision made by CJ beyond constitution. Many people may have different opinion and i respect their opinion.
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan Artcile 63 regarding
Disqualifications for membership of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament): its sub-article 1 says: A person shall be disqualified from being elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), if:-
clause h) he has been, on conviction for any offence involving moral turpitude, senteced to imprisonment for a term of not less than two years, unless a period of five years has elapsed since his release;
Yousif Raza Gilani has been convicted only for two minutes, how can he be disqualified......?
This may be called a strong reaction after family gate issue.
The point is that the supreme judiciary has never heard any case against PML(N), there are 35 cases pending against sharif brothers but CJ never bothers to hear them at all, can any one dare to ask why so kindness to them?
Similar type case of Shahbaz's election of MPA from two seats is pending and shahbaz govt is running on stay order since 2 years, why no hearing since then...............?
I am worried that judiciary is playing like a rubber stamp in the hands of those people which are supposed to be next winners in election and then no one can imagine the conditions prevailing in that period by duo of CJ+govt, the historic loss will be inflicted to the public, constitution, country and democracy as well predicted by Asma Jahangir.
Once again non-democratic forces have won as yet another Prime Minister's tenure has been cut short.
|
I agree with you and fear to disagree on some points as well.
The PM is convicted under article 63 (1) (g) not (h). Here is the difference.
Article 63: Disqualifications for membership of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament):
........... (1) A person shall be disqualified from being elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), if:-
............ (g) he has been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction for propagating any opinion, or acting in any manner, prejudicial to the ideology of Pakistan, or the sovereignty, integrity or security of Pakistan, or morality, or the maintenance of public order, or the integrity or independence of the judiciary of Pakistan, or which defames or brings into ridicule the judiciary or the Armed Forces of Pakistan, unless a period of five years has elapsed since his release; or
So, the PM is sentenced under Article 63 (1) (g) for propagating any opinion, or acting in any manner, prejudicial to the integrity or independence of the judiciary of Pakistan, or which defames or brings into ridicule the judiciary.
Sub clause (h) does not apply here. Sub clause (h) says: he has been, on conviction for any offence involving moral turpitude, senteced to imprisonment for a term of not less than two years, unless a period of five years has elapsed since his release;
It was not a moral turpitude but bringing the judiciary into ridicule by flouting the court order openly and setting a precedence for future disobeying the superior judiciary. So, sub clause (h) does not apply here.
Moreover, the SC has not issued notification by itself, rather it asked the EC to do that. The SC had given option of appeal which the ex-PM exhausted by himself. Furthermore, the power of the speaker NA to send the reference to the EC is not "internal proceedings of the NA". So, it can be, constitutionally, challenged in the court.
The crux of my above arguments is: The SC order is cent percent constitutional.
However, I do have a reservation on this. The SC should have given a clear verdict on April 26 instead of saying about "serious consequences under article 63 (1) (g)". However, here I do think that the SC would have in mind that the speaker NA would act as per constitution and will forward the case to EC for de-notifying the membership of Mr. Gillani.
As for as your arguements regarding sharif cases are concerned, I totally agree with you. It seems that the cases of PPP has been taken very seriously while other cases are taken very lightly. The SC must prove that it is totally impartial and objective. There are opportunities in Arsalan case, missing person case, mehrangate and some other related cases to prove this. and I hope it will.
__________________
Ahmad Shakeel Babar
.
"If you really want to achieve something the whole universe conspires for you to get your dream realized."
|